Abstract:

Supervision of master’s thesis at university level is a complex mixture of lecturing, learning support as well as an invitation to participation in research and knowledge development. The role of supervision in university teaching in general seems to be changing from being an almost private and emotional relation between the students and the university teachers into an important means in order to improve efficiency to ensure student completion on time. This implies a dramatic change in the role and professional identity of the supervisor and may affect the student-teacher relationship as well as the concept of academic standard.

University teachers are often left alone with professional development of supervision skills, though it is an essential qualification within a university known for its problem based learning concept, like Aalborg University, in Denmark. Consequently, there is a need for pedagogical capacity building for supervisors. However, such initiatives may be regarded as a challenge for both university teachers and the staff giving the courses, as they may be perceived as questioning both the teachers’ professional identity and autonomy as well as the concept of supervision as an academic skill.

This paper explores a pedagogical capacity building course and the roles of both course designers and actors. Teachers’ reactions and concerns, as well as the pedagogical challenge when colleagues teach colleagues, and both are part of a transformation process dictated from above are studied.

Consequently, the paper explores the learning condition within university for university teachers and argue why this needs transformations when supervision and supervision skills and responsibility are transformed from being primarily a pedagogical matter into a political and organizational (and economic) issue.

Method:
The authors gave 4 interactive courses for 54 staff. The data consist of field notes from course discussions where participants were engaged in defining a framework for pedagogical competence development in an action research process and from oral and written evaluations. Data is analysed in a theoretical framework drawing on transformative learning (Mezirow), professional knowledge (Eraut; Molander), supervision (Wisker), culture (Hall) and organizational learning (Ohlsson).

Findings:
A need for ‘free’ reflection space.

Different concepts of time emerged within a university culture whose researchers tend to operate on a polychrome notion of time but are now being directed by a management frame based on a monochrome concept of time.

A change of the supervisor role and responsibility from focus on the fruitful process to focus on time management and production.

Striving to sustain the notion of professional identity and academic standards.

Keywords:

Supervision, professional identity, educational culture, globalization.